TMI Blog

2019 (8) TMI 675

..... al - Bidis - HELD THAT:- On behalf of the appellant, the evidence has been adduced but there is nothing on record to show that the Respondents/defendants officers have any intention to cause any harm to the appellant firm. In the absence of it, merely any error in conducting the aforesaid proceedings with regard to imposition of fine against which the remedy of appeal is also available and was availed by the appellant, it cannot be said that the aforesaid proceedings were intended by the Respondents/defendants to cause harm to the reputation and business of the appellant/plaintiff. In the circumstances, the findings of the learned trial Court do not require any interference, as the same are just and proper. When the respondents acted in goo .....

..... from the manufacturing place without paying excise duty. In appeal, the said order was set aside by the Collector, Customs. 3. The grievances of the appellant is that the aforesaid seized beedis were not manufactured by the appellant and the whole proceedings with regard to imposing of fine amount was done maliciously and conducted without having any reasonable nexus, ignoring the relevant law and common prudence, just to harm the reputation and adversely affect the business of the appellant and by the act of the respondents/defendants, the reputation and business of the appellant/plaintiff has been damaged, therefore, the Respondents/Defendants are liable to pay ₹ 2 lakhs as compensation. Therefore, the suit was filed to recover the .....

..... hear the case. Accordingly, the suit has been dismissed. 6. This appeal has been filed on the ground that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in the right perspective in accordance with law and committed very grave legal error in holding that the appellant failed to proved that the act of the Respondents/defendants was malafidely done and caused harm to the reputation and business of the appellant. Apart from it, learned trial Court has also wrongly interpreted the provisions of Section 40 of the Central Excise Act and committed illegality in holding that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to hear the case. At the time of hearing of the appeal, none was present on behalf of the Respondents/defendants, hence the a .....

..... thing on record to show that the Respondents/defendants officers have any intention to cause any harm to the appellant firm. In the absence of it, merely any error in conducting the aforesaid proceedings with regard to imposition of fine against which the remedy of appeal is also available and was availed by the appellant, it cannot be said that the aforesaid proceedings were intended by the Respondents/defendants to cause harm to the reputation and business of the appellant/plaintiff. In the circumstances, the findings of the learned trial Court do not require any interference, as the same are just and proper. 9. In the circumstances, in this case, provisions of Section 40 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is also attracted which are quoted .....